Advertisement

Smokers’ misperceptions of light and ultra-light cigarettes may keep them smoking

      Abstract

      Introduction: This study examined smokers’ understanding of the relative tar deliveries of Ultra-light, Light, and Regular cigarettes, reasons for smoking Ultra-light/Light cigarettes, and the likelihood of both quitting smoking and switching to Regular cigarettes if they came to learn that one Ultra-light/Light cigarette gave the same amount of tar as one Regular cigarette.
      Design: Ten- to fifteen-minute random-digit-dialed, computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI) were conducted with both a national probability sample (n = 788) and a state random sample (n = 266) of daily smokers over the age of 18.
      Results: Less than 10% of smokers in the national sample and only 14% of smokers in the state sample knew that one Light cigarette could give the same amount of tar as one Regular cigarette. Less than 10% of smokers in the state sample knew that one Ultra-light cigarette could give the same amount of tar as one Regular cigarette. Thirty-two percent of the Light and 26% of the Ultra-light smokers in the national sample, and 27% of Light and 25% of Ultra-light smokers in the state sample, said they would be likely to quit smoking if they learned one Light/Ultra-light equaled one Regular.
      Conclusion: Many Light and Ultra-light smokers are smoking these cigarettes to reduce the risks of smoking and/or as a step toward quitting. However, these smokers are unaware that one Ultra-light/Light cigarette can give them the same amount of tar and nicotine as one Regular cigarette. Many of the Ultra-light/Light smokers sampled in this study stated that they would be likely to quit if they knew this information. Mistaken beliefs about low-yield brands are reducing intentions to quit smoking.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Kozlowski L.T.
        • Sweeney C.T.
        Low-yield, light, and ultra-light cigarettes.
        in: Goldberg M.E. Fishbein M. Middlestadt S. Social marketing theoretical and practical perspectives. Erlbaum, New York1997: 231-244
        • Henningfield J.E.
        • Kozlowski L.T.
        • Benowitz N.L.
        A proposal to develop meaningful labeling for cigarettes.
        JAMA. 1994; 272: 312-314
        • Benowitz N.L.
        • Jacob P.
        • Yu L.
        • Talcott R.
        • Hall S.
        • Jones R.T.
        Reduced tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide exposure while smoking ultralow- but not low-yield cigarettes.
        JAMA. 1986; 256: 241-246
      1. Gerstein DR, Levison PK. Reduced tar and nicotine cigarettes: smoking behavior and health. In: Committee on Substance Abuse and Habitual Behavior, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, NRC. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1982.

        • Gori G.B.
        • Lynch C.J.
        Smoker intake from cigarettes in the 1 mg Federal Trade Commission tar class.
        Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1983; 3: 110-120
        • Kozlowski L.T.
        • Frecker R.C.
        • Lei H.
        Nicotine yields of cigarettes, plasma nicotine in smokers, and public health.
        Prev Med. 1982; 11: 240-244
        • Maron D.J.
        • Fortmann S.P.
        Nicotine yield and measure of cigarette smoke exposure in a large population.
        Am J Public Health. 1987; 77: 546-549
        • Zacny J.P.
        • Stitzer M.L.
        Cigarette brand-switching.
        J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1988; 246: S619-S627
        • Kozlowski L.T.
        • Heatherton T.F.
        • Frecker R.C.
        • Nolte H.E.
        Self-selected blocking of vents on low-yield cigarettes.
        Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1989; 33: 815-819
        • Kozlowski L.T.
        • Pillitteri J.L.
        Compensation for nicotine by smokers of lower-yield cigarettes.
        in: The FTC Cigarette Test Method for Determining Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide Yields of U.S. Cigarettes: Report of the NCI Expert Committee. National Cancer Institute, US Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD1996: 161-172
        • Kozlowski L.T.
        • Rickert W.S.
        • Pope M.A.
        • Robinson J.C.
        • Frecker R.C.
        Estimating the yield to smokers of tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide from the “lowest-yield” ventilated-filter cigarettes.
        Br J Addict. 1982; 77: 159-165
        • Hammond E.C.
        • Garfinkel L.
        • Seidman H.
        • Lew E.A.
        “Tar” and nicotine content of cigarette smoke in relation to death rates.
        Environ Res. 1976; 12: 263-274
        • Stellman S.D.
        • Garfinkel L.
        Lung cancer risk is proportional to cigarette tar yield.
        Prev Med. 1989; 18: 518-525
        • Parish S.
        • Collins R.
        • Peto R.
        • Youngman L.
        • Barton J.
        • Jayne K.
        • Clarke R.
        • Appleby P.
        • Lyon V.
        • Cederholm-Williams S.
        • Marshall J.
        • Sleight P.
        Cigarette smoking, tar yields, and non-fatal myocardial infarction.
        Br Med J. 1995; 311: 471-477
        • Sidney S.
        • Tekawa I.S.
        • Friedman G.D.
        A prospective study of cigarette tar yield and lung cancer.
        Cancer Causes Control. 1993; 4: 3-10
        • Levi F.
        • Franceschi S.
        • LaVecchia C.
        • Randimbison L.
        • Te V.C.
        Lung carcinoma trends by histologic type in Vaud and Neuchatel, Switzerland, 1974–1994.
        Cancer. 1997; 79: 906-914
        • Cohen J.B.
        Smokers’ knowledge and understanding of advertised tar numbers.
        Am J Public Health. 1996; 86: 18-24
        • Giovino G.A.
        • Tomar S.L.
        • Reddy M.N.
        • Peddicord J.P.
        • Zhu B.P.
        • Escobedo L.G.
        • Eriksen M.P.
        Attitudes, knowledge and beliefs about low-yield cigarettes among adolescents and adults.
        in: The FTC Cigarette Test Method for Determining Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide Yields of U.S. Cigarettes: Report of the NCI Expert Committee. National Cancer Institute, US Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD1996: 39-57
        • Kozlowski L.T.
        • Goldberg M.A.
        • Yost B.A.
        • Ahern F.M.
        • Aronson K.R.
        • Sweeney C.T.
        Smokers are unaware of the filter vents now on most cigarettes.
        Tobacco Control. 1996; 5: 265-270
        • Groves R.M.
        • Biemer P.P.
        • Lyberg L.E.
        • Massey J.T.
        • Nicholls W.L.
        • Wakesberg J.
        Telephone survey methodology. John Wiley & Sons, New York1988
        • Salman C.T.
        • Nichols J.S.
        The next-birthday method of respondent selection.
        Public Opin Q. 1984; 47: 270-276
        • Council of American Survey Research Organizations
        Report of the CASRO Completion Rates Task Force. Audits & Survey Company, Inc, New York1982
        • Kozlowski L.T.
        Reduction of tobacco health hazards in continuing users.
        J Subst Abuse. 1989; 1: 345-357
        • Samet J.M.
        The changing cigarette and disease risk.
        in: The FTC Cigarette Test Method for Determining Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide Yields of U.S. Cigarettes: Report of the NCI Expert Committee. National Cancer Institute, US Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD1996: 77-92
      2. US Department of Health and Human Services. The health consequences of smoking, the changing cigarette: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office on Smoking and Health; 1981; DHHS publication no. (PHS) 81-50156.

      3. US Department of Health and Human Services. The health consequences of smoking, nicotine addiction: a report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Center for Health Promotion and Education, Office on Smoking and Health; 1988; DHHS publication no. (CDC) 88-8406.

        • Kozlowski L.T.
        Less hazardous smoking and the pursuit of satisfaction.
        Am J Public Health. 1987; 77: 539-541
        • Warner K.E.
        • Slade J.
        Low tar, high toll.
        Am J Public Health. 1992; 82: 17-18
        • Pollay R.W.
        Filters, flavors … flim-flam too! On “health information” and policy implications in cigarette advertising.
        J Public Policy Market. 1989; 8: 30-39
        • Maxwell J.C.
        Marlboro dominates.
        Tobacco Rep. 1996; 123: 19-21
        • Marsh A.
        • Matheson J.
        Smoking attitudes and behaviour. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London1983
        • Godin G.
        • Valois P.
        • Lepage L.
        • Desharnais R.
        Predictors of smoking behaviour.
        Br J Addict. 1992; 87: 1335-1343
        • Prochaska J.O.
        • DiClemente C.C.
        • Velicer W.F.
        • Rossi J.S.
        Standardized, individualized, interactive and personalized self-help programs for smoking cessation.
        Health Psychol. 1993; 12: 399-405
        • Hennrikus D.J.
        • Jeffery R.W.
        • Lando H.A.
        The smoking cessation process.
        Prev Med. 1995; 24: 235-244
        • Halpern M.T.
        • Warner K.E.
        Motivations for smoking cessation.
        J Subst Abuse. 1993; 5: 247-256
        • Goldberg M.E.
        • Kozlowski L.T.
        Loopholes and lapses in the “1997 tobacco settlement”.
        J Public Policy Market. 1997; 16: 345-351